HERETIC Review

I remember reading an interview with David Fincher when he was doing press for Gone Girl where, in talking about adapting the book, he stated, "You have to choose which aspect you want to make a movie from." The idea that adapting didn't simply mean to alter the material so that it fit a new medium but adjusting, modifying even - so that said material was not only suited to this new medium but complimentary of it, stuck with me. Heretic was not adapted from a book and doesn't *really* take Fincher's advice when it comes to picking a single aspect from the topic it's covering to focus on. In fact, Heretic operates more in the "go big or go home" line of thought as it attempts to be a mind game, a mind fuck, as well as a critical reading of organized religions that ring “as hollow and as capitalistic” as board games like Monopoly with all its "zany spinoffs".

I bring up this Fincher quote because it helped me narrow my thoughts in response to Heretic for, despite the sprawling breadth of the subject matter and epic monologue deliveries via a charming-as-ever Hugh Grant, what I really zeroed in on was this idea of "iterations" and how the film presents this idea that these amalgamations of fantastical stories meant to serve as moral channels have ultimately presented us diluted and obscured worldviews. Views that people have died in the name of, views that have created rifts between entire civilizations and have fostered countless forms of violence throughout history despite being perceived as a major contributor to a peaceful society. That isn't to say this is any single religion's fault - people will find anything to argue about - but that it has become the basis for such negative repercussions says a lot about how organized religions have imported their ideas to their followers and how that shapes how those followers then choose to experience the world.

THE GENTLEMEN Review

Given my 1987 born ass has always been a fan of writer/director Guy Ritchie's (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, RocknRolla) post-Tarantino style that pummels you with said style until you are essentially forced by submission into appreciating it one wouldn't be wrong in recognizing that Ritchie has strayed from that which made him a star in the late nineties/early aughts as his most recent, studio-centric efforts (King Arthur and Aladdin) have not only leaned toward the more conventional in their style, but also in their storytelling. 2015's The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was our first glimpse at the next step in Ritchie's evolution as it was meant to be (no, I didn't see Revolver, but have heard terrible, terrible things) delivering an action/spy thriller very much in line with the attitude of his earlier work while possessing a more refined, more finessed outward style. If the Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law Sherlock Holmes films were the apex of early Ritchie style with a big studio mentality then The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was Ritchie evolving before our eyes and taking it a couple of steps further than he needed to just to ensure us he was in fact maturing. With his return to form as it were though, Ritchie's The Gentlemen finds the filmmaker striking the best balance yet between his past and his contemporary status among his contemporaries. A more subdued and self-aware English gangster romp than his first few features, The Gentlemen compiles many of Ritchie's most recognizable tropes including classic English geezer names and clever overlapping narratives, but most importantly it retains the sense of fun those early films were regarded for as The Gentlemen's pomp and wit are at full exposure more so in the characters than they are anything having to do with the double-crossing, drug-dealing plot we've seen and heard countless times before.

Teaser Trailer for PADDINGTON 2

I was late to the party when it came to 2015's Paddington, an adaptation of the children's literature character as created by Michael Bond in 1958, that received glowing reviews and seemed to amass loving fans all over the world while remaining rather distant here in the States. Of course, I could have a misconception of how much attention the film received this side of the sea, but I don't know that I do. Paddington simply didn't seem to play in as many theaters and was certainly released much later stateside than it was in the UK. The run was so limited, in fact, I remember distinctly not being able to catch it during it's theatrical run, but instead buying it out of good faith on Blu-Ray and hoping for the best. I wasn't disappointed as the film was more or less what I expected: extremely pleasant and extremely cute. Director Paul King, who also helped pen the screenplays for both the original and the sequel, was able to craft a tender tale that seemingly captured the heart of the children's books it was based on while appealing to modern audiences all the same. Honestly, with all the positive word of mouth around the film I couldn't wait to see it and by the time I finally did I couldn't help but to agree with the fact it was a delightful piece of work; nothing especially exceptional by any means, but the best kind of example for the type of movie it was intended to be. With a budget of $55 million and a worldwide gross of over $265 million it seemed a no-brainer Studio Canal and its partners, including The Weinstein Company's Dimension division, would want another film in the series. And so, here we are, as Paddington 2 will continue to follow the adventures of the titular bear (again voiced by Ben Whishaw) this time having him face off against a thief who has stolen a book that is quite special to our Paddington. This first-look teaser doesn't give away too much by way of story, but it does feature plenty of shots of the newcomers to the cast including Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, and Jim Broadbent. Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Imelda Staunton, Peter Capaldi and Julie Walters all return as well with Paddington 2 set to open on January 12th, 2018.

FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS Review

It was late in the summer of 2009. The first weekend of August with the understanding I was now closer to starting a new semester instead of the end of the last one. The Hangover was the break out flick of the summer, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince had us all on pins and needles waiting for the two-part finale that wouldn't come around for more than a year and G.I. Joe had just extinguished any hope of it actually being decent after checking it off on its opening Friday night. And so, just like summer that first weekend in August was coming to an end, but before it did a friend asked me if I wanted to join him and a few others to see Julie & Julia on that Sunday afternoon. I wasn't familiar with Julia Child, I wasn't overly interested in the film, but I knew Meryl Streep was in it and who doesn't have a soft spot for Nora Ephron, right? Strangely enough, Julie & Julia has become one of those movies that hits just the right comforting spot when in need of something to view on a rainy night or lazy weekend afternoon. It is a unique true life story that is able to convey some major life themes and the struggles as much entails through something we all, to some degree, have in common: cooking. All of this is to say that, given the time of year and somewhat similar subject matter (true story, I mean) I was hoping to have very much the same warm reception to this new Streep vehicle as I did that Ephron's final picture. To be fair, Florence Foster Jenkins has a lot of charm and beyond the obvious intrigue of having one of the planet's greatest actors in the lead with such steadfast support from Hugh Grant and a notable turn from The Big Bang Theory's Simon Helberg not to mention the film was directed by Stephen Frears (The Queen, Philomena). Essentially, the credentials for this thing are through the roof as far as creating something reliably entertaining goes, but that's the thing-Florence Foster Jenkins is reliable and little more. The film hits the expected and necessary moments for the audience to understand the story and feel just enough sympathy for the right characters, but there is nothing about the film that transcends the standard or average conventions this type of movie fits into. This is a bit ironic considering the film tells the story of a woman who defied conventions and expectations despite not having the talent to match her ambition whereas this feature film version of her life has all the talent and tools at their dispense to defy as much, but delivers a final product more tedious than tremendous.

THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. Review

Though it doesn't indicate the quality of the film in the slightest, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. will always fall under the unfortunate circumstances of having to open two weeks after Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation. This is unfortunate due to the fact it will mean The Man From U.N.C.L.E. will have less of a cultural impact than the already slight one it was going to have without having to follow-up the last great action hurrah of the summer. This isn't really relative to the film itself, but while it seems there was never much expected of The Man From U.N.C.L.E., it's worth noting it is something of a shame due to the fact it now will definitely not come to mean much in the larger pop culture landscape. A shame because the film is actually quite fun and therefore rather satisfying when taken on the terms of what it is intended to be. Coming to us courtesy of director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, the Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes films) this film, based on the NBC show that ran from 1964-68 about two secret agents who work for a secret international counter espionage and law-enforcement agency called U.N.C.L.E. or the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, is everything you'd expect from the director and all you could want from the genre in general. Enlisting Superman (Henry Cavill) and The Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer) to star is another way of suggesting this could possibly be another sub-par take on an old television property, which is a trend in and of itself that feels dated now (how ya doin' 2000?), but Ritchie and his team (including first time feature writer Lionel Wigram) have somehow managed to cobble together a pile of standard spy movie cliches and make them into something astonishingly direct and abundantly stylish that completely owns what it is and, as a result, comes off as confident and self-assured as Cavill's Napoleon Solo.

First Trailer for THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.

Even when the summer movie season feels like it might be a rather dry one compared to previous years it always begins to reaffirm its status as the premiere time of year for would-be blockbusters by the time March rolls around as we're knee-deep in trailers for non-superhero properties that we didn't necessarily know a lot about before they went into production. In the last twenty-four hours we've received trailers for what could possibly be the biggest comedy of the summer, Cameron Crowe's latest and now we have our first look at Guy Ritchie's (Snatch, Sherlock Holmes) re-imagining of the 1960's television show, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. I have no prior knowledge of the British television show that starred Robert Vaughn and David McCallum, but given the credentials this new version has going for it I'm definitely intrigued. Henry Cavill (Man of Steel) and Armie Hammer (The Social Network) star as two opposing agents from the CIA and KGB who are forced to team-up in order to stop a mysterious criminal organization working to create numerous nuclear weapons. The trailer looks to be a lot of fun as Ritchie's trademark energy is fully intact and any number of the frames could be taken from a bygone era Bond film. The film looks to perfectly balance the style, action, humor and depth in a way that Cavill and Hammer will be doing much of the complimentary lifting to Ritchie's distinct style. Hammer especially looks to be having a lot of fun here while Cavill seems to purposefully be playing it so straight the humor will naturally float to the surface. The Man From U.N.C.L.E. also stars Alicia Vikander, Hugh Grant, Elizabeth Debicki, Jared Harris and opens  on August 14th.

CLOUD ATLAS Home Video Review

While I would certainly classify myself as a sci-fi nerd I don't think I would place Cloud Atlas fully in that category. It is one of those movies that is hard to describe. I can't imagine the pitch for it (which I guess is one reason it had to be financed by foreign investors) and to have such a grand idea condensed into a single cinema-going experience all seems to be a bit too much to feed in one serving. It is something that might have worked better, and would have likely benefited, from being a mini-series on HBO or something of that nature rather than having an audience sit through six elaborately detailed stories pushed together and feeling forced to connect what it attempts to deliver in theme. That being said, the themes this film does concern itself with mixed with several of the individual stories that are ambitious in their own way and are then layered with others combine to create an impact that will leaving you feeling as if you truly have witnessed something special, if not at least very stimulating. I cannot say that Cloud Atlas will be for everyone, in fact, I can certainly understand where many people would have issues with the film. Whether it be that it is simply too confusing without being compelling enough to hold their attention or that for all its big ideas, in the end, it feels rather simplistic. I would understand and to a certain degree, I would concur with those points. Still, this movie is far too ambitious and far too unique to be dismissed for not being exactly what you expected or wanted it to be. Cloud Atlas is a sprawling epic that not only delves into several subjects but wants to make us think and speculate as much as it wants to entertain. It is a rarity and for that, I appreciate every minute it gave me.

CLOUD ATLAS Review

While I would certainly classify myself as a sci-fi nerd I don't think I would place Cloud Atlas fully in that category. It is one of those movies that is hard to describe. I can't imagine the pitch for it (which I guess is one reason it had to be financed by foreign investors) and to have such a grand idea condensed into a single cinema-going experience all seems to be a bit too much to feed in one serving. It is something that might have worked better, and would have likely benefited, from being a mini-series on HBO or something like that rather than having an audience sit through six elaborately detailed stories pushed together and feeling forced to connect what it attempts to deliver in theme. That being said, the themes this film does concern itself with mixed with several of the individual stories that are ambitious in their own way and are then layered with others combine to create an impact that will leaving you feeling as if you truly have witnessed something special, if not at least very stimulating. I cannot say that Cloud Atlas will be for everyone, in fact, I can certainly understand where many people would have issues with the film. Whether it be that it is simply too confusing without being compelling enough to hold their attention or that for all its big ideas, in the end, it feels rather simplistic. I would understand and to a certain degree, I would concur with those points. Still, this movie is far too ambitious, far too unique to be dismissed for not being exactly what you expected or wanted it to be. Cloud Atlas is a sprawling epic that not only delves into several subjects but wants to make us think and speculate as much as it wants to entertain. It is a rarity and for that, I appreciate every minute it gave me.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.

Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) is a formidable threat.

What I was most concerned with going in was, as I said earlier, the premise. After the writers of that Johnny Depp franchise seemed to exhaust every possible plot related to pirates I wondered first and foremost where this movie was going to take me. The film centers itself around its idiotic if not slightly charming and simply named Pirate Captain. With Hugh Grant doing his best surly growl mixed with that upper crest English accent, he makes the Pirate Captain a lovable simpleton. He (mis)guides a crew of interesting characters that in no manner resemble the classic pirate archetypes we have grown familiar with. I loved that they each had simple descriptive names such as The Pirate with Gout (as played up by the great Brendan Gleeson) and The Pirate with a Scarf (the soon to be Bilbo Baggins but who I will always identify as the British Jim). Anton Yelchin gets in a few laughs as The Albino Pirate and in a great running gag Ashley Jensen, a pro at voice work who you might have seen on Chlesea Lately, is the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate. The ragtag bunch is on a quest to help their fearless leader win the coveted Pirate of the Year award that he has had a long standing losing streak with. Naturally, the prize is claimed by the pirate who steals the most gold, and though he is dedicated to his craft, The Pirate Captain is not the most skilled or intimidating enforcer.

The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his rag tag crew.

Sounds like pretty standard fare so far huh? Yea, that's what I was thinking until the writers threw a pleasant little twist into the mix. The pirate gang, while in the process of hijacking ships and looking for "booty", come across Charles Darwin ( David Tennant).  Darwin sheds light on the fact The Pirate Captain's faithful companion Polly the parrot is not a parrot at all, but the rare dodo bird that could be the answer to his untold riches problem. This leads them through a rather interesting game of double crossing and lies as Darwin wants the praise for his find and the Captain wants his rewards. They run across the pirate-hating Queen Victoria (the wonderfully evil Imelda Staunton) who becomes more of a central focus than her first impression gave, but at least adds depth to the shallow outline of what I thought we would be served. Clearly there would need to be more than I expected, but I guess what I'm really saying is that the experience of "Pirates!" was not the light endeavor I anticipated but in fact turned out to be a rather great investment that in the end was hugely enjoyable. It's weird because I still don't think the movie overall was as exceptional as some likely will, but it was at least a fun and clever written piece. It has a distinctive style that the target audience will probably find engaging as it mixes the stop motion and computer animation, but it also carries that British wit that will help keep the parents in the crowd awake and chuckling.

Darwin's faithful companion seems to be the
most intelligent character around.

As I watched the beautiful, hand-made creations move flawlessly from scene to scene that initial hesitation to embrace the style of animation seemed to fade. I was now seemingly on the other end of the spectrum where I almost appreciated the fact the makers had made such an investment in telling this story that I wanted to applaud it more. It even seemed to give the whole movie a more personal tone, a more human effort. We weren't simply watching characters that animators had constructed inside a digital world while sitting behind a computer, but instead were seeing a hands-on, detailed piece that came from the skills they inherently possessed. That is not to say computer animation doesn't take time (its incredibly detailed work) or doesn't require talent, but this is talent of a different kind. When applied to this medium, while not the most popular at the moment, it still lends a different kind of gut reaction from the audience watching. This is a labor of love and that is what is most evident about "Pirates! Band of Misfits". There is always the supporting characters voiced by more familiar names like Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek (even Al Roker shows up as The Pirate who Likes Sunsets and Kittens) but it is the charm of watching these blob-like characters set against the digitized settings lurch through the film while providing great farce. I could never have seen this film and my life would be no different for it, but even though I can shrug it off doesn't mean it's horrible. It's here and it's probably the best option you have if you're looking for good, family entertainment this weekend.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.